Labor must back Howard's plan

The constitution will be improved if the PM gets his way. He deserves ALP support, writes Gough Whitlam.

The Labor Party must support John Howard's proposal to revive the bipartisan 1959 proposal on disagreements between the Senate and the House of Representatives.

I write as the sole surviving member of the 1956-59 Constitutional Review Committee and the longest-serving leader of the federal parliamentary Labor Party.

I believe Labor members of the federal and state parliaments should, without delays and without conditions, support Howard's proposal to revive the committee's recommended alternative to double dissolution.

Other commentators have already raised the bogey that the referendum contemplated by Howard would demolish the rights of the states in the Senate, "the House of the States". They ignore the committee's recommendation that a disputed bill should be submitted for the royal assent if, at a joint sitting, it is approved by an absolute majority of the total number of members of the two houses and, in the case of at least half the states, by at least half the members of the two houses chosen in and for the state. This proposal was supported by 11 members of the committee; the sole dissenter was a Liberal senator from Tasmania.

There is a valid precedent for bipartisan reform of the constitution. In May 1977 the two houses passed bipartisan proposals for referendums to: (1) hold Senate elections at the same time as House of Representatives elections; (2) ensure a casual vacancy in the Senate is filled by a person of the same political party as the Senator chosen by the people and for the balance of his term; (3) allow electors in the territories, as well as electors in the states, to vote at referendums; and (4) provide for retiring ages for judges of federal courts.");document.write("

advertisement

");
}
}
// -->

The Labor Party commissioned shadow attorney-general Lionel Bowen and me to campaign in favour of all four proposals. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th proposals were carried by large majorities in all states. The 1st proposal secured an overall majority of 1,825,860 votes and a majority in NSW, Victoria and South Australia. It was defeated in Queensland and Western Australia because, since the referendums were not held on election days, the premiers of Queensland and Western Australia campaigned against their federal colleagues.

Secondly, Howard has stated that, if there was general support, he might sponsor a referendum to repeal section 25 of the constitution. That section deals with the situation where "all persons of any race are disqualified from voting at elections" for a state assembly. Federal Labor should encourage the Prime Minister to sponsor a referendum to repeal a section that is now unacceptable.

Thirdly, sub-section 44(i) of the constitution has, on many occasions, disqualified a candidate from being chosen or sitting as a member of the Federal Parliament if he "is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power". The High Court has held that a British subject is a citizen of a foreign power.

Federal Labor believes a person who has become an Australian citizen or who has dual citizenship should be entitled to be chosen and to sit as a member of the Federal Parliament. Therefore federal Labor should encourage the Prime Minister to sponsor a referendum to repeal section 44(1).